Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL suffering..........can > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. > > True > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it in > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any affirmation > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > ? > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > has ever written. > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > -- Dan > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the intellect > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a recipe > for struggle. > > /AL The question is: can you *be here* where no assumption is involved? It has nothing to do with establishing a system. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > suffering..........can > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > oblivion. > > > True > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain > it in > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > affirmation > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the > affirmation: " any > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > has ever written. > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > intellect > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a > recipe > > for struggle. > > > > /AL > > The question is: can you *be here* where no assumption > is involved? > > It has nothing to do with establishing a system. > > -- Dan The thinking mind can never truly be here until it fuses with its own concept about uncertainty. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > suffering..........can > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > oblivion. > > > True > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain > it in > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > affirmation > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the > affirmation: " any > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > has ever written. > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > intellect > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a > recipe > > for struggle. > > > > /AL > > The question is: can you *be here* where no assumption > is involved? > > It has nothing to do with establishing a system. > > -- Dan Can there be a *be here* where no assumption is involved? Can this *be here* where no assumption is involved be asserted without assuming something? Can any mention of a *be here* in any form, *be here* or !*be here*! or BEHERE be made, pointed to with any meaning other than not where, not a moment, *this one* is at and " somewhere " " some moment, " where *this one* can be? Why not say, Can you **be over here** or **be over there* where no assumption is involved? What would be the difference between these three questions? Is there another way to point to the same thing (*be here*) that is not assumptive at all? Is it possible? If it is, an exploration would interesting. If not, does the question establish a " *be here* where no assumption is involved " system and defeat itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.